politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn remains on the ballot and doesn’t require nomination

bigjohnowls said:

John_M said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

BudG said:

The "unelectable" Mr Corbyn steamrollers on.

Unelectable is used to refer to his prospects among the wider electorate, not the Labour selectorate. We won't know the definitive answer to whether he is indeed unelectable in that sense until 2020, all evidence before then is not complete proof - however, one can certainly make an assessment as to whether victory among the Labour selectorate is a better indicator of his wider electability or if other evidence, like annual locals, polls, etc, are a better indicator. Reasonable people will differ on that front.

Even 2020 won't be definitive... n=1 is not statistically significant!

The Labour party, at inception, did not win an immediate majority. Corbyn and his acolytes can simply say they are resetting the party and starting afresh.

Well if the Party doesnt unite behind Corbyn

I for one and I suspect I will be in the majority will blame a defeat on PLP in 2020.

The left have the control of the party till 2025 IMO

David_Evershed said:

My long shot prediction is that after a couple more weeks Owen Smith will realise he has no chance of winning and withdraw.

He will use the excuse of too much abuse (from Corbynistas) and say he is withdrawing for the sake of the party - trying to leave the impression that he could have won if not for the intimidation of Corbyn supporters. Smith will not want to have to admit that the great majority of party members still support Corbyn because this undermines the PLP anti Corbyn position.

bigjohnowls said:

John_M said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

BudG said:

The "unelectable" Mr Corbyn steamrollers on.

Unelectable is used to refer to his prospects among the wider electorate, not the Labour selectorate. We won't know the definitive answer to whether he is indeed unelectable in that sense until 2020, all evidence before then is not complete proof - however, one can certainly make an assessment as to whether victory among the Labour selectorate is a better indicator of his wider electability or if other evidence, like annual locals, polls, etc, are a better indicator. Reasonable people will differ on that front.

Even 2020 won't be definitive... n=1 is not statistically significant!

The Labour party, at inception, did not win an immediate majority. Corbyn and his acolytes can simply say they are resetting the party and starting afresh.

Well if the Party doesnt unite behind Corbyn

I for one and I suspect I will be in the majority will blame a defeat on PLP in 2020.

The left have the control of the party till 2025 IMO

Speedy said:

kle4 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

BudG said:

DavidL said:

So the choice is Corbyn or Smith. What a mess.

All of the PLP needs to get behind Smith 100% now. Confirm unequivocally that if they are asked to serve by him they will. Confirm that if Corbyn wins they will continue not to serve leaving Corbyn without the ability to draw up a shadow cabinet. Confirming that as the people who have had to work with him most and are best placed to assess him Corbyn is just not good enough and not up to the job. And they need to all be saying this every day.

Alternatively, all of the PLP should persuade Mr Smith to pull out now and confirm that if they are prepared to do the job that they were elected to do and oppose the Tories.

The job they were elected to do is to represent their constituents.

Details, details.

It's interesting how Corbyn must presumably believe he was opposing the Tories those 500 times he voted against Labour, if we are to accept opposing Tories is the primary purpose of a Labour MP.

The problem was never about backbench rebellions, it was the constant plotting inside the shadow cabinet to get rid of Corbyn from day 1.

Any leader has every right to remove those who he appoints to positions, and betray his trust.

PlatoSaid said:

CarlottaVance said:

First Theresa now Boris - talking French in France:

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

Johnson is a fluent speaker of French and Italian, has a good grasp of German and Spanish,[80] and is a lover of Latin,[361] frequently using classical references in his newspaper columns and speeches.[340]

Artist said:

Speedy said:

bigjohnowls said:

brokenwheel said:

bigjohnowls said:

DavidL said:

So the choice is Corbyn or Smith. What a mess.

All of the PLP needs to get behind Smith 100% now. Confirm unequivocally that if they are asked to serve by him they will. Confirm that if Corbyn wins they will continue not to serve leaving Corbyn without the ability to draw up a shadow cabinet. Confirming that as the people who have had to work with him most and are best placed to assess him Corbyn is just not good enough and not up to the job. And they need to all be saying this every day.

We will replace the PLP

Invasion of the party snatchers.

PLP trying to steal the Party back from the democratically elected Glorious Leader.

Party rescued by members.

If they will not serve Jezza under a new mandate. There is no option but to replace.

I agree that the majority of the PLP needs to be replaced.
People like Hunt, Kinnock, and Benn definitely have no place even in their own constituencies (who seriously thinks that Tristram Hunt is representative of his constituents? ).
And are serial backstabbers that any sane party would have kicked out a long time ago.

But I disagree with the phrase "Glorious Leader", no leader should be called glorious.

A Corbynite wouldn't be any more a suitable candidate for Stoke on Trent than Tristram Hunt is.

Ishmael_X said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.

I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Charles said:

alex. said:

Speedy said:

DavidL said:

So the choice is Corbyn or Smith. What a mess.

All of the PLP needs to get behind Smith 100% now. Confirm unequivocally that if they are asked to serve by him they will. Confirm that if Corbyn wins they will continue not to serve leaving Corbyn without the ability to draw up a shadow cabinet. Confirming that as the people who have had to work with him most and are best placed to assess him Corbyn is just not good enough and not up to the job. And they need to all be saying this every day.

Corbyn already has a shadow cabinet functional enough that no one can tell the difference.

In fact it's more functional that the previous one, since it doesn't contain members who are constantly plotting.
It's better to keep them out of the tent pissing in, than inside pissing in.

He's barely got a functional (in the sense of posts filled) Shadow cabinet. He's certainly not got a functional shadow front bench

There's this assumption that you need to have a Shadow for every single post in the Cabinet.

I'm not sure that's actually right - a smaller team might actually be more impactful (not that I think Corbyn's team has sufficient talented people to make this model work)

He could have axed positions, he hasn't. He still has the positions, people are double jobbing.

williamglenn said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

PlatoSaid said:

CarlottaVance said:

First Theresa now Boris - talking French in France:

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

Johnson is a fluent speaker of French and Italian, has a good grasp of German and Spanish,[80] and is a lover of Latin,[361] frequently using classical references in his newspaper columns and speeches.[340]

He didn't sound fluent, but certainly not embarrassingly bad.

Yes I don't think you can call him fluent. He tried to do an interview on French TV at the start of the Brexit campaign where he got lost for words and switched to English.

No-one can touch Ted Heath for the perfect Franglais accent.

bigjohnowls said:

alex. said:

bigjohnowls said:

John_M said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

BudG said:

The "unelectable" Mr Corbyn steamrollers on.

Unelectable is used to refer to his prospects among the wider electorate, not the Labour selectorate. We won't know the definitive answer to whether he is indeed unelectable in that sense until 2020, all evidence before then is not complete proof - however, one can certainly make an assessment as to whether victory among the Labour selectorate is a better indicator of his wider electability or if other evidence, like annual locals, polls, etc, are a better indicator. Reasonable people will differ on that front.

Even 2020 won't be definitive... n=1 is not statistically significant!

The Labour party, at inception, did not win an immediate majority. Corbyn and his acolytes can simply say they are resetting the party and starting afresh.

Well if the Party doesnt unite behind Corbyn

I for one and I suspect I will be in the majority will blame a defeat on PLP in 2020.

The left have the control of the party till 2025 IMO

So you are expecting defeat in 2020 and 2025?

A party at war will obviously lose.

A party that goes into 2020 with the Tories requoting the PLP statements of the last few weeks is likely to be unsuccessful.

Lewis in 2025 to win if Tory Liters have gone by then.

williamglenn said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

PlatoSaid said:

CarlottaVance said:

First Theresa now Boris - talking French in France:

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

Johnson is a fluent speaker of French and Italian, has a good grasp of German and Spanish,[80] and is a lover of Latin,[361] frequently using classical references in his newspaper columns and speeches.[340]

He didn't sound fluent, but certainly not embarrassingly bad.

Yes I don't think you can call him fluent. He tried to do an interview on French TV at the start of the Brexit campaign where he got lost for words and switched to English.

No-one can touch Ted Heath for the perfect Franglais accent.

nunu said:

This sounds eerily like Owen Jones prediction on LEAVE.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qi_IipZVG8

Pagan said:

HurstLlama said:

Pagan said:

The solution is to stop as many people needing to commute.

A sensible government policy to promote companies to allow staff to work from home would do all of the following

1) reduce congestion of the transport network . Road and rail
2) Allow staff to be more geographically widespread so allowing staff to live in cheaper areas
3) Bring much needed income into the cheaper areas as wages were spent locally
4) Give people an effective payrise while not costing the company anymore as they no longer have the cost of commuting
5) Provide an employment boost to poorer areas of the country as people are enabled to move out of the south east
6) It would also make infrastructure such as schools and hospitals potentially more effective as a better mix of people were in each area. This last is largely supposition on my part though as it seems fairly accepted that the poor and workless tend to have more health and educational issues so diluting areas with people moved from the south east may help
7) Lower the housing crisis in the south east

Wouldn't disagree with any of that, Mr. Pagan. It would take not very much money (all of it from the employers) and provide huge benefits. It will however, really impact on middle managers (what are they going to do without employees in the office to "manage") and people whose jobs depend on meetings.

Hmmm, the more I think about it the better the idea becomes. HMG enacts legislation requiring a company to provide a guaranteed seat per ticket. The City (and the civil service) and their equivalents in Leeds, Manchester, Edinburgh etc., are forced to reform their working practices. The worker bees get a better life and a whole level of pen pushers become redundant. Productivity will zoom, and it will shift employment out of London.

In my old company it seemed to be the middle managers who worked from home all the time while the ground troops weren't allowed to on the whole. It probably wouldnt take much to bring in. A guaranteed right to ask to be able to work from home, much like the flexible hours right they brought in. Perhaps a small tax incentive initially to give companies a carrot. In these days where we have the like of video conferencing within the easy reach of most there really is little reason not to except for managers fearing they can't properly oversee things and that is a failing on their part.

MTimT said:

John_M said:

Ishmael_X said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.

I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.

One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!

For me, travel is the only major thing I'd spend money on these days. I have a functioning computer, a Kindle, a couple of nice cameras, some very nice kitchen knives and a beat up old vehicle with over 210k on the clock which still works. Physical possessions otherwise are more a liability than an asset.

Luckyguy1983 said:

williamglenn said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

PlatoSaid said:

CarlottaVance said:

First Theresa now Boris - talking French in France:

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

Johnson is a fluent speaker of French and Italian, has a good grasp of German and Spanish,[80] and is a lover of Latin,[361] frequently using classical references in his newspaper columns and speeches.[340]

He didn't sound fluent, but certainly not embarrassingly bad.

Yes I don't think you can call him fluent. He tried to do an interview on French TV at the start of the Brexit campaign where he got lost for words and switched to English.

No-one can touch Ted Heath for the perfect Franglais accent.

I think the French quite enjoy halting schoolboy French (that's what I found when I lived there briefly). It makes them feel respected and slightly superior at the same time.

John_M said:

MTimT said:

John_M said:

Ishmael_X said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.

I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.

One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!

For me, travel is the only major thing I'd spend money on these days. I have a functioning computer, a Kindle, a couple of nice cameras, some very nice kitchen knives and a beat up old vehicle with over 210k on the clock which still works. Physical possessions otherwise are more a liability than an asset.

Sort-of-snap. I have great saucepans & knives, decent camera & telescope. My car is an ancient Ford and as for clothes, let's put it this way, people occasionally offer me money if I sit down to rest my leg .

kle4 said:

Charles said:

John_M said:

Ishmael_X said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.

I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.

One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!

That's not necessarily in her interests though.

I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined

You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.

David_Evershed said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

John_M said:

Ishmael_X said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.

I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.

One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!

That's not necessarily in her interests though.

I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined

You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.

In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.

kle4 said:

RaRaRasputin said:

justin124 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Wheel, the PLP has only itself to blame. They put Corbyn on the ballot.

Ma Beckett called nominating Corbyn 'the biggest political mistake of my life' - and that was many months ago......

Harriet Harman is the real culprit for her stupidity as Acting Leader a year ago. She should never be forgiven.

What exactly did she do wrong? I was out the country at the time and didn't follow the election too closely.

There was a vote on benefit restrictions or something like that, and she whipped an abstention to show Labour was serious about economic credibility, and Corbyn was the only leadership candidate to vote against, and it gave some real fuel to his campaign.

SimonStClare said:

David_Evershed said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

John_M said:

Ishmael_X said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.

I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.

One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!

That's not necessarily in her interests though.

I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined

You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.

In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.

So could be worse.

Same applies in Germany, I believe.

MTimT said:

SimonStClare said:

David_Evershed said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

John_M said:

Ishmael_X said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.

I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.

One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!

That's not necessarily in her interests though.

I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined

You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.

In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.

So could be worse.

Same applies in Germany, I believe.

Don't the Japanese take out multi-generational mortgages in order to purchase property?

David_Evershed said:

Para 50 of the judgement seems to be the crux and is common sense.


I have to say that a fair reading of Clause II.B.2 (i) and (ii) reveals a natural and ordinary meaning that seems to me to be entirely clear. My view of their combined effect can be summarised thus:
(a)
where there is a vacancy for Leader, anyone who wishes to be considered for the position would require nominations from 15% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to be a candidate in the election;
(b)
where there is no vacancy (because the Leader is still in place), anyone who wishes to challenge the Leader’s right to continue as Leader would need nominations from 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to mount such a challenge;
(c)
the Leader would not in that situation (where there is no vacancy) be someone who was a “challenger” for the leadership and, accordingly, would require no nominations in order to compete in the ballot to retain his/her position as Leader.

Speedy said:

David_Evershed said:

Para 50 of the judgement seems to be the crux and is common sense.


I have to say that a fair reading of Clause II.B.2 (i) and (ii) reveals a natural and ordinary meaning that seems to me to be entirely clear. My view of their combined effect can be summarised thus:
(a)
where there is a vacancy for Leader, anyone who wishes to be considered for the position would require nominations from 15% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to be a candidate in the election;
(b)
where there is no vacancy (because the Leader is still in place), anyone who wishes to challenge the Leader’s right to continue as Leader would need nominations from 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to mount such a challenge;
(c)
the Leader would not in that situation (where there is no vacancy) be someone who was a “challenger” for the leadership and, accordingly, would require no nominations in order to compete in the ballot to retain his/her position as Leader.

The many hours I wasted arguing with HYUFD about that.
I hope the legal ruling will finally have convinced him.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Song, the MPs need to either submit to Corbyn, or walk away.

logical_song said:

kle4 said:

Reason 156 there will be no split - the current fighting, unlike Corbyn's serial rebelling, is damaging to the Labour brand as a whole. However much most of the MPs may think Corbyn a disaster, forming a new party and making a success of it (a very unlikely scenario) would just make permanent the fighting on the left and prevent victory for the left. A bare handful, if that, will want to try that again when it worked so poorly the last time in the long run. The brand of Labour is so strong it can survive a Corbyn disaster, should it occur. Not survive well, but it would survive to fight on. So they will stay. Either keeping quiet or bowing out.

This is Corbyn country now. Only electoral oblivion has a chance of changing that, and we won't find out for awhile.

Who knows what would happen to SDP Mark 2, but is there an alternative?

John_M said:

MTimT said:

John_M said:

Ishmael_X said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.

I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.

One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!

For me, travel is the only major thing I'd spend money on these days. I have a functioning computer, a Kindle, a couple of nice cameras, some very nice kitchen knives and a beat up old vehicle with over 210k on the clock which still works. Physical possessions otherwise are more a liability than an asset.

Sort-of-snap. I have great saucepans & knives, decent camera & telescope. My car is an ancient Ford and as for clothes, let's put it this way, people occasionally offer me money if I sit down to rest my leg .

RaRaRasputin said:

oxfordsimon said:

kle4 said:

RaRaRasputin said:

justin124 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Wheel, the PLP has only itself to blame. They put Corbyn on the ballot.

Ma Beckett called nominating Corbyn 'the biggest political mistake of my life' - and that was many months ago......

Harriet Harman is the real culprit for her stupidity as Acting Leader a year ago. She should never be forgiven.

What exactly did she do wrong? I was out the country at the time and didn't follow the election too closely.

There was a vote on benefit restrictions or something like that, and she whipped an abstention to show Labour was serious about economic credibility, and Corbyn was the only leadership candidate to vote against, and it gave some real fuel to his campaign.

Alongside that, she (along with Miliband) oversaw the rules changes allowing the £3 system to be set up.

Thanks a lot for the reply. Am I right in thinking that the £3 system was more Miliband's project, not that it actually mattered in the end.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

kle4 said:

David_Evershed said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

John_M said:

Ishmael_X said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.

I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.

One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!

That's not necessarily in her interests though.

I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined

You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.

In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.

What's the situation here?!

If the value of the estate is less than the estate's debts, the estates is effectively bankrupt.

David_Evershed said:

John_M said:

Ishmael_X said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.

I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.

One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!

Parents need to know their date of death at least seven years in advance so that they can gift the bulk of their wealth to their children at that point - to avoid inheritance tax.

Pagan said:

...Snip...

The major issue I think is to wean companies off of hours worked and to a more tasks completed sort of model. I can quite see in twenty years that you wont be employed to work 40 hours a week but be employed to complete so many task units a week

HurstLlama said:

John_M said:

MTimT said:

John_M said:

Ishmael_X said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.

I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.

One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!

For me, travel is the only major thing I'd spend money on these days. I have a functioning computer, a Kindle, a couple of nice cameras, some very nice kitchen knives and a beat up old vehicle with over 210k on the clock which still works. Physical possessions otherwise are more a liability than an asset.

Sort-of-snap. I have great saucepans & knives, decent camera & telescope. My car is an ancient Ford and as for clothes, let's put it this way, people occasionally offer me money if I sit down to rest my leg .

Gosh, I am in with you guys. My car is ten years old and I have no intention of buying another one (a 10 year old Honda with 65k on the clock - it will see me out) and whatever material desires I could have I have long ago fulfilled. Travel though is a pain in the arse. There are still a couple of places I would like to go back to, but only if I can get there by train - I cannot be doing with all the crud one has to put up with air travel and ocean liners don't really exist anymore (not that I would pay £100+ per day for the privilege of spewing my ring).

Herself and I live comfortably. Thomas the cat lives very well. My son has been told that he can expect to inherit the value of our property(ies) but bugger all else. That will do, and not bad for a fellow off a Wandsworth council estate.

PlatoSaid said:

John_M said:

Speedy said:

David_Evershed said:

Para 50 of the judgement seems to be the crux and is common sense.


I have to say that a fair reading of Clause II.B.2 (i) and (ii) reveals a natural and ordinary meaning that seems to me to be entirely clear. My view of their combined effect can be summarised thus:
(a)
where there is a vacancy for Leader, anyone who wishes to be considered for the position would require nominations from 15% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to be a candidate in the election;
(b)
where there is no vacancy (because the Leader is still in place), anyone who wishes to challenge the Leader’s right to continue as Leader would need nominations from 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to mount such a challenge;
(c)
the Leader would not in that situation (where there is no vacancy) be someone who was a “challenger” for the leadership and, accordingly, would require no nominations in order to compete in the ballot to retain his/her position as Leader.

The many hours I wasted arguing with HYUFD about that.
I hope the legal ruling will finally have convinced him.

Well, if you don't come here in order to waste time, you really are wasting your time. If that makes sense. Posts made on PB since creation: eleventy billion. Minds changed: 0.

I changed my view of gay marriage! I wasn't convinced at all - and within a week or so was converted/why didn't I see that before.

Theuniondivvie said:

Charles said:

rottenborough said:

BigIan said:

CarlottaVance said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Wheel, the PLP has only itself to blame. They put Corbyn on the ballot.

Ma Beckett called nominating Corbyn 'the biggest political mistake of my life' - and that was many months ago......

One of the biggest of all time, I would think.

Certainly in the history of the Labour party.

True. I'd put Varus's German exhibition higher on the list of "biggest errors of all time".

Were his paintings that bad?

Theuniondivvie said:

Charles said:

rottenborough said:

BigIan said:

CarlottaVance said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Wheel, the PLP has only itself to blame. They put Corbyn on the ballot.

Ma Beckett called nominating Corbyn 'the biggest political mistake of my life' - and that was many months ago......

One of the biggest of all time, I would think.

Certainly in the history of the Labour party.

True. I'd put Varus's German exhibition higher on the list of "biggest errors of all time".

Were his paintings that bad?

RaRaRasputin said:

oxfordsimon said:

kle4 said:

RaRaRasputin said:

justin124 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Wheel, the PLP has only itself to blame. They put Corbyn on the ballot.

Ma Beckett called nominating Corbyn 'the biggest political mistake of my life' - and that was many months ago......

Harriet Harman is the real culprit for her stupidity as Acting Leader a year ago. She should never be forgiven.

What exactly did she do wrong? I was out the country at the time and didn't follow the election too closely.

There was a vote on benefit restrictions or something like that, and she whipped an abstention to show Labour was serious about economic credibility, and Corbyn was the only leadership candidate to vote against, and it gave some real fuel to his campaign.

Alongside that, she (along with Miliband) oversaw the rules changes allowing the £3 system to be set up.

Thanks a lot for the reply. Am I right in thinking that the £3 system was more Miliband's project, not that it actually mattered in the end.

PlatoSaid said:

Tim Duffy
It's obvious email isn't secure. The only truly private communication is stuff you say towards the end of a very long podcast.

Charles said:

HurstLlama said:

John_M said:

MTimT said:

John_M said:

Ishmael_X said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.

I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.

One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!

For me, travel is the only major thing I'd spend money on these days. I have a functioning computer, a Kindle, a couple of nice cameras, some very nice kitchen knives and a beat up old vehicle with over 210k on the clock which still works. Physical possessions otherwise are more a liability than an asset.

Sort-of-snap. I have great saucepans & knives, decent camera & telescope. My car is an ancient Ford and as for clothes, let's put it this way, people occasionally offer me money if I sit down to rest my leg .

Gosh, I am in with you guys. My car is ten years old and I have no intention of buying another one (a 10 year old Honda with 65k on the clock - it will see me out) and whatever material desires I could have I have long ago fulfilled. Travel though is a pain in the arse. There are still a couple of places I would like to go back to, but only if I can get there by train - I cannot be doing with all the crud one has to put up with air travel and ocean liners don't really exist anymore (not that I would pay £100+ per day for the privilege of spewing my ring).

Herself and I live comfortably. Thomas the cat lives very well. My son has been told that he can expect to inherit the value of our property(ies) but bugger all else. That will do, and not bad for a fellow off a Wandsworth council estate.

Can I join the club as well? My car is 13 years old now, albeit only 45K miles on the clock, and I don't have many material desires - possessions just get in the way. And travel is definitely a pain in the arse!

Pulpstar said:

David_Evershed said:

I don't think that children normally inherit the debts of their parents in the UK and certaimly not unsecured credit card debt.

Any secured debts would of course be entitled for repayment out of the value of the security eg a mortgage.

That's interesting to know - so in theory I should aim to die with maxed out credit cards ?

David_Evershed said:

CD13 said:

Mr Llama,

I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.

Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.

But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.

As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."

There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.

This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.

Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.